Posted on 08/06/2004 2:58:05 PM PDT by gilliam
Edited on 08/06/2004 3:16:58 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Captain George Elliott indeed feels that Kerry shot Viet Cong in the back, however he admits not to have witnessed the event.
New Affidavit on Web
**************
Relates to these other Threads:
Veteran retracts criticism of Kerry (Vet Says Misquoted - Stands by Original Statement)
I assume the issue is...why did he receive a silver star for this? Do soldiers get silver stars every time they kill the enemy? Don't think so.
Does this matter? Armed combatant fleeing can turn fast and fire at you. In the movies the hero waits for the bad guy to turn and take aim. Was this the real deal or Kerry's Super 8 reenactment?
"Do soldiers get silver stars every time they kill the enemy?"
Do you expect to be given a bonus at work every day just for doing your job? As Rush used to say, the job of the military is to kill people and break things.
Kerry explains that the boy ran off toward the jungle and that he shoots him in the back, because he thinks he might just turn around. . .
So Kranish knew the story was true; because he had already written about it in his book; but chose to discredit the Swift Vet and the story as well and by extension the book to come.
Would be 'hard to figure' the rationale here; but given the 'Kerry players'; it is not difficult at all.
Kerry must have shot over his own shoulder as he was running from the enemy.
Kerry invented that shot !
.
What, he thinks he might turn around? Did he have intelligence, did he consult with France and the United Nations? I wonder why he rejects preemptive action when it comes to his country.
Then why did he get a Silver Star?
Well, I don;t know; seems there was some controversy about it; but he got it. . .don't want the story of this 'star' mixed up with some other dubious accounts of earning his medals; but the fact remains; this story is John Kerry's story; from his lips. . .to Kranish's ears. . .and so it is written.
(Think he offers as well; or perhaps just recounted. . .how he goes and shoots the small animals/dogs/cats/gerbils (?) after he finishes with the boy; who i think he emtied some additional ammo into.
Perhaps this is the last medal Kerry gets (away with) and they know he is disgusting. . .and a danger and a threat and so his superiors recommend that he 'go home'.
Seems he did honestly win a unanimous, 'outta here'. . .
Question:
Since Kerry himself admitted to these atrocities, and broke the Geneva Convention....where was his trial???
Shooting an enemy soldier in the back does not violate the Geneva convention.
True enough, but he DID admit to committing war crimes when testifying in front of the senate.
So neener.
Then the Hell with him.
I think that Kerry is a lifetime fraud; but I don't have a problem with him shooting a VC in the back. Shoot them in the back, shoot them while they sleep...just shoot them. It was war.
When he admitted to breaking the Geneva conventions, ignorance is not a defense, is it? He finds out when he gets home that what he did was wrong. It still was wrong when he did it. Why wasn't he prosecuted?
The issue is whether or not Elliott had retracted any part of his affidavit. The news is abuzz with "one of the people shown on the Swift Boat Veteran's ad has retracted his affidavit."
That assertion is demonstrably false. Elliott has retracted NO part of his affidavit.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.